By Alison Gardner
Wrightwood Series on Gender
Background Thoughts
(From The Urantia Book Paper 84, or otherwise noted)
"Man did not consciously nor intentionally seize woman's
rights and then gradually and grudgingly give them back to her; all this
was an unconscious and unplanned episode of social evolution." [UB:
937]
For the individual, a thorough reading of The Urantia Book
puts to rest most of the uneven and often misguided rantings of the so-called
"women's movement." There is no greater indictment of perpetrated
wrongs nor vindication of women's rightful, spiritually and socially equal
place among men than The Urantia Book.
However, for the group, our world community, the justifiable outcry against genderistic inequality comprises the core of true feminism. Feminism is practiced daily by women and men throughout the world. Feminism is the sum total of all the positive decisions benefiting and realigning the status of women. Anti-feminism, or genderism, is any backward choice that diminishes or delimits the future of one woman or all women.
Feminist activism is noble in that it creates a context that is easily accessed and that readily defines what must be changed among us, on a global scale, to set all men and women free. Men and women can and will one day be free from the primitive myths, confused legends, and misled practices of our forebears, and free to embrace their spiritual emancipation as a world people. Then, and only then, can we worship and love God as one world-wide family. Together, in unity and harmony, and only together, we will satisfy an essential prerequisite to Light and Life status by creating a culture that is spiritually, socially, politically, emotionally, and psychologically balanced (equal), fully, between men and women. The on-going, vocal activism of feminists, therefore, is a service to all humankind, for the benefit of all women and all men for all time.
Throughout human history, women have been our civilization's moral standard
bearers, and today continue that now urgent role. "Today, in
the twentieth century, woman is undergoing the crucial test of her long
world existence!" [UB: 937]
"Woman's status in Palestine was much improved by Jesus'
teaching; and so it would have been throughout the world if his followers
had not departed so far from that which he painstakingly taught them."
[UB: 1840]
Jesus' gospel incorporated the greatest redefinition
of women's rights, roles, and responsibilities ever made, before or since.
Jesus strived valiantly throughout his earthly sojourn to override and
correct the mistaken treatment of women, the cumulative but still primitive
appreciation of what women were all about. Jesus unhesitatingly broke with
existing culture and tradition to say that women were important. His actions
and words on behalf of women and the celebration of women were intentionally
and carefully woven into his private and public ministries. "After
Pentecost, in the brotherhood of the kingdom woman stood before God on
an equality with man .... among the followers of Jesus woman has been forever
set free from all religious discriminations based on sex. Pentecost obliterated
all religious discrimination founded on racial distinction, cultural differences,
social caste, or sex prejudice. No wonder these believers in the new religion
would cry out, `Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.'"
[UB: 2065]
Jesus spoke specifically and unhesitatingly on many
"women's issues." His courage sprang from personal conviction
and the divine intelligence that women were equal in every way to men,
just "personality trends" humankind calls male and female, two
sides of the same coin. And he did this in an age, two thousand years ago,
when "...it was not deemed proper...for a self-respecting man
to speak to a woman in public." [UB: 1612]
With regard to
the teachings of his day regarding marriage and divorce, "...the
Master countenanced only those...which accorded women equality with men."
[UB: 1839]
Jesus observed a man mistreating his wife: "My
brother, always remember that man has no rightful authority over woman
unless the woman has willingly and voluntarily given him such authority.
Your wife has engaged to go through life with you, to help you fight its
battles, and to assume the far greater share of the burden of bearing and
rearing your children; and in return for this special service it is only
fair that she receive from you that special protection which man can give
to woman as the partner who must carry, bear, and nurture the children....
It is Godlike to share your life and all that relates thereto on equal
terms with the mother partner who so fully shares with you that divine
experience of reproducing yourselves in the lives of your children. If
you can only love your children as God loves you, you will love and cherish
your wife as the Father in heaven honors and exalts the Infinite Spirit,
the mother of all the spirit children of a vast universe." [UB: 1471]
In his travels with Ganid, the young boy had several times tried
to get Jesus to discuss the relations of the sexes. He always answered
Ganid's questions but never talked on this subject at any great length
until one night the pair was accosted by two prostitutes. Ganid "spoke
sharply and rudely motioned them away." But Jesus took this opportunity
both to teach Ganid a valuable lesson about the heavenly kingdom and to
embrace the souls of these two women, and help them in a very practical
sense to "...make plans for a new and better life on earth
and eternal life in the great beyond." [UB: 1473]
It
was "astounding" that Jesus formally recognized ten women
"...[Y]ou should not presume thus to speak to the children of God,
even though they chance to be his erring children. Who are we to sit in
judgment of these women?" [UB: 1472]
"I can tell by their faces that they have experienced much sorrow;
they have suffered much at the hands of an apparently cruel fate; they
have not intentionally chosen this sort of life; they have, in discouragement
bordering on despair, surrendered to the pressure of the hour and accepted
this distasteful means of obtaining a livelihood as the best way out of
a situation that to them appeared hopeless. Ganid, some people are really
wicked at heart; they deliberately choose to do mean things, but, tell
me, as you look into these now tear-stained faces, do you see anything
bad or wicked?" [UB: 1473]
Jesus' formation of the Women's Evangelistic Corps was "most astounding
in that day, when women were not even allowed on the main floor of the
synagogue (being confined to the women's gallery)." [UB: 1679] "as
authorized teachers of the new gospel of the kingdom. The charge which
Jesus gave these ten women as he set them apart for gospel teaching and
ministry was the emancipation proclamation which set free all women and
for all time; no more was man to look upon woman as his spiritual inferior."
[UB: 1679]
The "women's issues" of modern feminists continue
Jesus' legacy, as they, too, revolve around the eradication of genderism.
Feminism fights genderism, the most extreme and insidious form of racism.
If we are to regard Jesus as the Ultimate Feminist, then we might view
Paul as the ultimate genderist. Paul's erroneous views of women, marriage,
and fornication stemmed wholly from his adherence to irrelevant cultic
rituals. Worse, he cynically attached these perverted views to early Christianity
-- well knowing "that such teachings were not part of Jesus'
gospel." [UB: 977]
Paul's rampant genderism has adversely
influenced men and affected women for the last two thousand years.
Although much of what Jesus said during his ministry was practiced in
the period immediately following his departure, a definite regression in
women's roles and status came about as a result of Paul's low opinion of
women. Many men today personify Paul-like, materialistic, egotistic, and
backward views of women. "...[T]hey [the apostles] were literally
stunned when he [Jesus] proposed formally to commission these ten women
as religious teachers and even to permit their traveling about with them.
The whole country was stirred up by this proceeding, the enemies of Jesus
making great capital out of this move, but everywhere the women believers
in the good news stood stanchly behind their chosen sisters and voiced
no uncertain approval of this tardy acknowledgment of woman's place in
religious work. And this liberation of women, giving them due recognition,
was practiced by the apostles immediately after the Master's departure,
albeit they fell back to the olden customs in subsequent generations. Throughout
the early days of the Christian church women teachers and ministers were
called deaconesses and were accorded general recognition. But Paul, despite
the fact that he conceded all this in theory, never really incorporated
it into his own attitude and personally found it difficult to carry out
in practice." [UB: 1679]
Despite the foibles of Paul, the
early female ministers, teachers, and followers of Jesus still stand as
one of the most poignant and graphic messages of our age. In fact, it is
a chief argument now being put forward in support of the ordination of
women priests and pastors throughout the world. Today's still fairly impotent
women plaintively assert that if it is the role of the preacher to teach
the good news of the gospel then all of us must remember the important
role that women have played in proclaiming Jesus' gospel of the kingdom.
It was to a woman, Mary Magdalene, and her four women companions, that
Jesus first appeared in resurrected (morontia) form. [Indeed, Mary Magdalene
witnessed four of the first five morontia appearances. (2033)].
These women preachers-in-waiting might be encouraged further to know also that it was to a woman, Fonta, that the adjutant spirit of worship first made contact. And, that Jesus' first direct, positive, and undisguised pronouncement of his divine nature and sonship on earth was made to a woman. This is when he said, "I who speak with you am he," to Nalda, a woman with a questionable character in the eyes of men up to that moment. But Jesus beheld her now being a human soul who desired salvation, desired it sincerely and wholeheartedly, and that was enough. (UB: 1614)
It should be enough for all of us, should it not?
"Woman's status has always been a social paradox; she has
always been a shrewd manager of men; she has always capitalized man's strong
sex urge for her own interests and to her own advancement. By trading subtly
upon her sex charms, she has often been able to exercise dominant power
over man, even when held by him in abject slavery." [UB: 935]
This
paradox is broadly illustrated in The Urantia Book's fine exposition
of the pre-history and history of women's roles. Woman's long struggle
for equality has been fought on at least three major fronts, all playing
a part in this so-called paradox:
This latter problem, competition versus chivalry, is the core of the paradox; but it should not be examined without full recognition of the other two predisposing factors.
It was quite late on the continuum of women's history that Jesus sought
to teach humankind of the importance of women, their relevance to social
and spiritual progress, and the need to make special accommodations for
their important role. He achieved only measured success in this arena,
as we can see over the last two thousand years. Even industry has done
more to free woman than religion. "Once a woman's value consisted
in her food-producing ability, but invention and wealth have enabled her
to create a new world in which to function -- spheres of grace and charm.
Thus has industry won its unconscious and unintended fight for woman's
social and economic emancipation. And again has evolution succeeded in
doing what even revelation failed to accomplish." [UB: 937]
Today
and tomorrow, it will be humankind's reawakening to the living gospel of
Jesus, good news for all men, women, and children, that will set gender
relations right. Although divinity is our spiritual destiny, it is biology
that determines a woman's planetary destiny. "Mother love is
instinctive; it did not originate in the mores as did marriage." [UB:
932]
With all the manipulation that early woman was forced to set in
motion, it is no wonder that man developed a distrust of the opposite sex.
Both men and women have been unwitting victims of humankind's slow social
evolution and waylaid spiritual awakening.
"...women naturally love babies more than men do." [UB: 774]
"The mother and child relation is natural, strong, and instinctive,
and one which, therefore, constrained primitive women to submit to many
strange conditions and to endure untold hardships. This compelling mother
love is the handicapping emotion which has always placed woman at such
a tremendous disadvantage in all her struggles with man." [UB: 932]
"She [woman] failed to get social recognition during primitive times
because she did not function in an emergency; she was not a spectacular
or crisis hero. Maternity was a distinct disability in the existence struggle;
mother love handicapped women in the tribal defense." [UB: 934]
"Primitive women...unintentionally created their dependence on the
male by their admiration and applause for his pugnacity and virility. This
exaltation of the warrior elevated the male ego while it equally depressed
that of the female and made her more dependent...." [UB: 934]
"It may be that the instinct of motherhood led woman into marriage,
but it was man's superior strength, together with the influence of the
mores, that virtually compelled her to remain in wedlock." [UB: 933]
"When man was a
hunter, he was fairly kind to woman, but after the domestication of animals,
coupled with the Caligastia confusion, many tribes shamefully treated their
women.... Man's brutal treatment of women constitutes one of the darkest
chapters in human history." [UB: 778]
These early misperceptions
and misunderstandings of women have been carried on from father to son,
not genetically, but through a shared psychic and psychological experience.
Again, because of woman's need to survive and provide the most stable care
for her young, these attitudes have been self-reinforcing in the worst
possible way, with the worst possible results, in many men leading to downright
contempt for women. "Men have long regarded women as peculiar,
even abnormal."
Fear of modern feminism, and women
in general, still draws heavily on these accumulated fears. Strides in
gender equality often do little to assuage men's fears. In deeply confused,
gender-threatened men it can have the reverse effect, making matters worse
for these men and for any men and women with whom they come into contact.
"...proper and satisfactory sex relations have always involved the
element of choice and cooperation by woman, and this has always given intelligent
women considerable influence over their immediate and personal standing,
regardless of their social position as a sex. But man's distrust and suspicion
were not helped by the fact that women were all along compelled to resort
to shrewdness in the effort to alleviate their bondage.
"...Man found it hard to understand woman, regarding her with a strange
mixture of ignorant mistrust and fearful fascination, if not with suspicion
and contempt." [UB: 935] "A great advance was made when a man was denied the right to
kill his wife at will." [UB: 936]
Conversely, it is because of the sex urge that selfish
man is lured into making something better than an animal out of himself.
"Primitive man never hesitated to enslave his fellows. Woman was the
first slave, a family slave. Pastoral man enslaved woman as his inferior
sex partner. This sort of sex slavery grew directly out of man's decreased
dependence upon woman." [UB: 778]
"Woman has always been treated more or less as property, right up
to and in the twentieth century after Christ. She has not yet gained world-wide
freedom from seclusion under man's control. Even among advanced peoples,
man's attempt to protect woman has always been a tacit assertion of superiority."
[UB: 936] "The self-regarding and self-gratifying sex relationship entails
the certain consequences of self-denial and insures the assumption of altruistic
duties and numerous race-benefiting home responsibilities. Herein has sex
been the unrecognized and unsuspected civilizer of the savage; for this
same sex impulse automatically and unerringly compels man to think
and eventually leads him to love." [UB: 922]
Distrust of women has been counted among the chief reasons behind
celibacy practices. Distrust of women is likely at the root of many dissolved
marriages, homes, and families. It could be a force behind nurture-driven
homosexuality. With regard to the alleged rise in homosexuality, theorists
like Lila Karp and Renos Mandis, in their essay, "Genderless Sexuality:
A Male-Female Psychological Exploration of the Future of Sexual Relationships,"
postulate that the spread of homosexuality
"Moved by the force of love, fragments of the world would seek out
one another so that a world may be." [Pierre Teilhard de Chardin]
"...is a biting
statement against the failure of heterosexual relationships in our sexist
society...most vividly putting its finger on the total fiasco of our sexist
society in regard to male-female relationships."
In light
of The Urantia Book's statement that "...a man and a
woman, cooperating, even aside from family and offspring, are vastly superior
in most ways to either two men or two women," [UB:932]
we
might want to analyze the growing trend toward homosexuality, if it is
indeed growing, which may affect our collective planetary destiny.
If the most sensitive, thoughtful, caring among us are increasingly rejecting male-female sexuality, are we not denuding our planetary gene-pool of these attributes, all essential to spiritual growth? Will the world one day be dominated by people who can abide the psychological misery and sexual dissatisfaction brought about in partnerships overtly demeaning to women? If it is true that homosexuality is growing, and growing for these reasons, it is yet another indication that we are in urgent need of doing something each day, each moment, to reshape and improve gender relations.
One might wonder if the new reproductive strategies being practiced by some women, enabling them to fertilize, gestate, bear, support, and raise children without encountering a male, is somehow another effort to circumvent man's mistreatment of woman, however unintentionally it developed.
Women have enjoyed few instances of positive reinforcement for their
gender. Modern feminists are attempting to reawaken the images of strength,
intelligence, integrity, and power of womankind. "The simple
act of telling a woman's story from a woman's point of view is a revolutionary
act." [Carol P. Christ]
There are references to a Golden Age,
to Amazon princesses, to goddesses of all persuasions, but there is a general
paucity of images on which to draw, and these images, too, can be infected
with the virus of male distrust and suppression.
The great Amazon myths have been, in part, an effort to overcome the otherwise demeaning history of women on this planet. Phyllis Chesler, in her essay, "The Amazon Legacy" (with subheads which include "Amazons: The Universal Male Nightmare"), examines the psychological heart of these myths by dissecting the two chief themes.
First, "women sacrificing and killing men," the other, "the
ultimate male triumph over such female acts." The themes of the myths
shape, re-create, and explain both social and individual history. "Thus,
for example, female children must still give up or minimize supposedly
male activities, must naturally desert preadolescent or adolescent female
comrades if they are to please boys, get married, and become mothers. And
male children certainly never fall in love with or marry `Amazons'"at
least, not until such women are safely disarmed."
Philip Zabriskie
(Goddesses in Our Midst) was a Jungian who noted that the power
and presence of the ancient archetypes of goddesses can become part of
one's present psychic life. Margot Adler continues this idea in her essay,
"Meanings of Matriarchy," and in her book, Drawing Down the
Moon: "It is obvious that even the Greco-Roman classical
goddesses who were known in a patriarchal context are much richer images
of the feminine than we have today, although it is equally true that such
images can be used to repress as well as to liberate women."
Thus,
the alleged Golden Age of powerful women, although purported to be a period
that may have been better for women, carries with it difficulties and problems
of its own.
Feminist Adrienne Rich, writing in Partisan Review, states the
fundamental meaning for today's woman: "Whether such an age,
even if less than golden, ever existed anywhere, or whether we all carry
in our earliest imprintings the memory of, or the longing for, an individual
past relationship to a female body, larger and stronger than our own, and
a female warmth, nurture, and tenderness, there is a new concern for the
possibilities inherent in beneficent female power, as a mode which is absent
from the society at large, and which, even in the private sphere, women
have exercised under terrible constraints of patriarchy."
Theorist
Erich Neumann, in The Great Mother, asserts that "...matriarchy
was not a historical state but a psychological reality with a great power
that is alive and generally repressed in human beings today."
Again,
in the words of Adrienne Rich, writers like Neumann and Robert Graves (The
White Goddess) have seemingly rejected "...masculinism
itself and have begun to identify the denial of the feminine in civilization
with the roots of inhumanity and self-destructiveness and to call for a
renewal of the feminine principle."
It is interesting to note
that full discussion of how to demand gender equality while at the same
time assuring the special accommodation women need and deserve (for the
special service only their gender offers to children, family, and the home)
is almost completely absent from feminist literature. Feminists are not
talking about the interconnectedness of these two issues: How can women
simultaneously maintain the options for fair competition"to live and
share their talents on the world stage with equal opportunity"and
maintain their survivalist need for chivalry?
This great and important question is rarely discussed among feminists because of fear. Women are afraid this will mitigate their future progress to date and regress their cause back to "a woman's place is in the home." These feminists who are afraid to accept chivalry as part of the equality equation are not true feminists. They fail to see both that their quest is for human liberation (all men, women, and children) and equality; and, that it is chivalry's special recognition that will achieve this real and everlasting social, political, and spiritual liberation.
Therefore, this is our call. We must become Jesusonian feminists in the war to eradicate genderism and bring about woman's social and spiritual equality. We can look to the feminist Jesus to understand that chivalry can be co-equal with sex equality. Chivalry (special recognition/accommodation of women) does not cancel out sex equality; rather, it enables sex equality.
What a gift we have in The Urantia Book! It gives us a deity-eye view of what is really going on. We can ask what are the ideals of gender relations, and get some answers. We can be assured that it is possible for fair competition to co-exist with needed chivalry. It all works in harmony and unity if we treat one another as Jesus would.
The book reinforces that women are spiritually equal in God's eyes, and assures them that spiritual equality includes fighting for planetary equality (at home, in the work place, in society at large, in all her relationships). It is simply a matter of social justice and ethical morality.
Carol P. Christ, co-author with Charlene Spretnak of the essay, "Images
of Spiritual Power in Women's Fiction," believes "[T]hat
women's spiritual and social quests are two dimensions of a single struggle
and it is important for women to become aware of the ways in which spirituality
can support and undergird women's quest for social equality.
Among
"prerequisites of progressive government and the earmarks of ideal
statehood" is the
"Women's social quest concerns women's struggle to gain respect,
equality, and freedom in society"in work, in politics, and in relationships
with women, men, and children.
"Women's spiritual quest concerns a woman's awakening to the
depths of her soul and her position in the universe." "due recognition of sex equality and
the coordinated function of men and women in the home, school, and church,
with specialized service of women in industry and government." [UB:
807]
(Unfortunately, there is no further exposition of "specialized
service.")
The Material Son and Daughter mission incorporated the inclusion of
women in the council selected to assume responsibilities in the new administration
of world affairs. "Take note! women as well as men were in
this group, and that was the first time such a thing had occurred on earth
since the days of Dalamatia." [UB: 831]
Men and women are
mutually dependent, literally from here to eternity. One cannot, and should
not, live without the fully realized potential of either gender. Perhaps
this is the greatest imperative for men as well as women to become feminists
(anti-genderists). Man simply will not make spiritual progress without
woman's freedom to fulfill her own human and spiritual potential.
And, we cannot escape the "...innate biologic fact that men
and women positively will not live without each other, be they the most
primitive savages or the most cultured mortals." [UB: 922]
As
Helen E. Fisher has described in her book, Anatomy of Love, pair
bonding has withstood the torrents of time in every culture. It has survived
harems, polygamy, polyandry, adultery, and divorce. The amazing fact in
our divorce statistics is that 50% of marriages do last, and that most,
almost two-thirds, of those divorced remarry and have more children, all
of which is good for the human race. "Men and women will need
each other in the morontial and spiritual as well as in their mortal careers."
[UB: 939]
Consider the results of a recent study
by the professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of
California-San Francisco, of 7500+ Americans. They report that men need
to be married or they starve to death! Married men add ten years to their
life simply by virtue of the fact that they live with a woman and enjoy
better nutrition.
"Never, even in the Corps of the Finality, will the creature metamorphose
so far as to obliterate the personality trends that humans call male and
female; always will these two basic variations of humankind continue to
intrigue, stimulate, encourage, and assist each other; always will they
be mutually dependent on cooperation in the solution of perplexing universe
problems and in the overcoming of manifold cosmic difficulties." [UB:
939]
"The pairing of the sexes enhanced survival and was the very beginning
of society." [UB: 932]
On a planet achieving the first, or planetary, stage of Light and Life,
we are given a glimpse of what we are shooting for: "The majority
of social and administrative posts are held jointly by men and women. Most
of the teaching was also done jointly; likewise all judicial trusts were
discharged by similar associated couples." [UB: 625]
There
is no getting around the fact that modern men must make room for women
in all spheres of daily life. There is no place where any human should
be excluded because of gender. If genderism is the silent front of the
war against racism, then its eradication will surely diminish, even extinguish
all other types of racism based on skin color, ethnicity, or religion.
"When the Veils Come Tumbling Down" is an essay written by
Sheila Collins in Women in the Year 2000. She refers to both literal
and symbolic veils: "Everywhere today women are casting off
the veils of compliance, complicity and comfort which have kept them in
tow to a male-dominated system of values and objectives"in religious
areas as elsewhere. Sometimes the veils which women are shedding are palpable;
the heavy, dark veils that Moslem women wear as a sign of being possessions
of their husbands, or the veils of the Roman Catholic nuns, which signify
possession by the Church. At other times the veils are symbolic"veils
of ignorance, apathy, fear, complacency, self-dislike, the internalized
taboos with which religious systems have surrounded women to keep them
in their place."
Within Collins's essay, its leader, in fact,
is a parody of a Bible story called After Joshua 6:1-5: "Now
women the world over were shut up from within and without, because of the
veils which patriarchal religious systems had devised for them to wear.
None of the values, wisdom, insights or talents which were locked up inside
these women could come out, and no new ideas, experiences or opportunities
could come in. And the Lord said to some women, `See, I have given into
your hands the women of this earth with all their rich gifts and manifold
wisdom. You shall march through the banks and office buildings, the factories,
the kitchens, the fields and religious houses, all the women who desire
to see women free and strong going through at least once. Thus you shall
do for seven years. And seven women will bear signs which read: "Equal
Pay for Equal Work," "No More War!" "Our Children Need
Day Care!" "Women Bear UP Half the SKY," "Sisterhood
is Powerful," "Women of the World Unite!" "Mountain
Moving Day is Coming." And in the seventh year you shall march around,
arm in arm, now in a great army. And when the call is sounded, as soon
as you hear the phrase, "Liberation means wholeness," then all
the people shall shout it with a great shout. And the veils will come tumbling
down from their eyes, and women together, hand and hand shall walk proudly
into the future.'"
Muriel Rukeyser, the feminist writer, said,
"The universe is made of stories, not atoms." She was trying
to convey the role of communication in shaping the destiny of the world.
Feminist authors today are striving to reshape women's status. We must
all work together to communicate to one another, through whatever means
at our disposal, the importance and value to women in our culture. Our
civilization depends on it!
by Lois Gould
Once upon a time, a baby named X was born. This baby was named X so that nobody could tell whether it was a boy or a girl. Its parents could tell, of course, but they couldn't tell anybody else. They couldn't even tell Baby X, at first.
You see, it was all part of a very important Secret Scientific Xperiment, known officially as Project Baby X. The smartest scientist had set up this Xperiment at a cost of Xactly 23 billion dollars and 72 cents, which might seem like a lot for just one baby, even a very important Xperimental baby. But when you remember the prices of things like strained carrots and stuffed bunnies, and popcorn for the movies and booster shots for camp, let alone 28 shiny quarters from the tooth fairy, you begin to see how it adds up.
Also, long before Baby X was born, all those scientists had to be paid to work out the details of the Xperiment, and to write the Official Instruction Manual for Baby X's parents and, most important of all, to find the right set of parents to bring up Baby X. These parents had to be selected very carefully. Thousands of volunteers had to take thousands of tests and answer thousands of tricky questions. Almost everybody failed because, it turned out, almost everybody really wanted either a baby boy or a baby girl, and not Baby X at all. Also, almost everybody was afraid that Baby X would be a lot more trouble than a boy or a girl. (They were probably right, the scientists admitted, but Baby X needed parents who wouldn't mind the Xtra trouble.
There were families with grandparents named Milton and Agatha, who didn't see why the baby couldn't be named Milton or Agatha instead of X, even if it was an X. There were families with aunts who insisted on knitting tiny dresses and uncles who insisted on sending tiny baseball mitts. Worst of all, there were families who already had other children who couldn't be trusted to keep a secret. Certainly not if they knew the secret was worth 23 billion dollars and 72 cents -- and all you had to do was take one little peek at Baby X in the bathtub to know if it was a boy or a girl.
But, finally, the scientists found the Joneses, who really wanted to raise an X more than any other kind of baby -- no matter how much trouble it would be. Ms. and Mr. Jones had to promise they would take equal turns caring for X, and feeding it, and singing it lullabies. And they had to promise never to hire any babysitters. The government scientists knew perfectly well that a baby-sitter would probably peek at X in the bathtub, too.
The day the Joneses brought their baby home, lots of friends and relatives came over to see it. None of them knew about the secret Xperiment, though. So the first thing they asked was what kind of baby X was. When the Joneses smiled and said, "It's an X!" nobody knew what to say. They couldn't say, "Look at her cute little dimples!" And they couldn't say, "Look at his husky little biceps!" And they couldn't even say just plain "kitchy-coo." In fact, they all thought the Joneses were playing some kind of rude joke.
But, of course, the Joneses were not joking. "It's an X" was absolutely all they could say. And that made the friends and relatives very angry. The relatives all felt embarrassed about having an X in the family. "People will think there's something wrong with it!" some of them whispered. "There is something wrong with it!" others whispered back.
"Nonsense!" the Joneses told them all cheerfully.
"What could possibly be wrong with this perfectly adorable X?"
Nobody could answer that, except Baby X, who had just finished its bottle. Baby X's answer was a loud, satisfied burp.
Clearly, nothing at all was wrong. Nevertheless, none of the relatives felt comfortable about buying a present for a Baby X. The cousins who sent the baby a tiny football helmet could not come and visit any more. And the neighbors who sent a pink-flowered romper suit pulled their shades down when the Joneses passed their house.
The Official Instruction Manual had warned the new parents this would happen, so they didn't fret about it. Besides, they were too busy with Baby X and the hundreds of different Xercises for training it properly.
Ms. and Mr. Jones had to be Xtra careful about how they played with little X. They knew that if they kept bouncing it up in the air and saying how strong and active it was, they'd be treating it more like a boy than an X. But if all they did was cuddle it and kiss it and tell it how sweet and dainty it was, they'd be treating it more like a girl than an X.
On page 1,654 of the Official Instruction Manual, the scientists prescribed: "Plenty of bouncing and plenty of cuddling, both. X ought to be strong and sweet and active. Forget about dainty altogether."
Meanwhile, the Joneses were worrying about other problems. Toys, for instance. And clothes. On his first shopping trip, Mr. Jones told the store clerk, "I need some clothes and toys for my new baby." The clerk smiled and said, "Well, now, is it a boy or a girl?" "It's an X," Mr.Jones said, smiling back. But the clerk got all red in the face and said huffily, "In that case, I'm afraid I can't help you, sir." So Mr. Jones wandered helplessly up and down the aisles trying to find what X needed. But everything in the store was piled up in sections marked "Boys" or "Girls." There were "Boys' Pajamas" and "Girls' Underwear" and "Boys' Fire Engines" and "Girls' Housekeeping Sets." Mr. Jones went home without buying anything for X. That night he and Ms. Jones consulted page 2,326 of the Official Instruction Manual. "Buy plenty of everything!" it said firmly.
So they bought plenty of sturdy blue pajamas in the Boys' Department and cheerful flowered underwear in the Girls' Department. And they bought all kinds of toys. A boy doll that made pee-pee and cried, "Pa-pa." And a girl doll that talked in three languages and said, "I am the Pres-i-dent of Gen-er-al Mo-tors." They also bought a storybook about a brave princess who rescued a handsome prince from his ivory tower, and another one about a sister and brother who grew up to be a baseball star and a ballet star, and you had to guess which was which.
The head scientists of Project Baby X checked all their purchases and told them to keep up the good work. They also reminded the Joneses to see page 4,629 of the Manual, where it said, "Never make Baby X feel embarrassed or ashamed about what it wants to play with. And if X gets dirty climbing rocks, never say `Nice little Xes don't get dirty climbing rocks'."
Likewise, it said, "If X falls down and cries, never say, `Brave little Xes don't cry.' Because, of course, nice little X's do get dirty, and brave little Xes do cry. No matter how dirty X gets, or how hard it cries, don't worry. It's all part of the Xperiment."
Whenever the Joneses pushed Baby X's stroller in the park, smiling strangers would come over and coo: "Is that a boy or a girl?" The Joneses would smile back and say, "It's an X." The strangers would stop smiling then, and often snarl something nasty -- as if the Joneses had snarled at them.
By the time X grew big enough to play with other children, the Joneses' troubles had grown bigger, too. Once a little girl grabbed X's shovel in the sandbox, and zonked X on the head with it. "Now, now, Tracy," the little girl's mother began to scold, "little girls mustn't hit little -- " and she turned to ask X, "Are you a little boy or a little girl, dear?"
Mr. Jones, who was sitting near the sandbox, held his breath and crossed his fingers.
X smiled politely at the lady, even though X's head had never been zonked so hard in its life. "I'm a little X," X replied.
"You're a what?" the lady exclaimed angrily. "You're a little b-r-a-t, you mean!"
"But little girls mustn't hit little Xes, either!" said X, retrieving the shovel with another polite smile. "What good does hitting do, anyway?"
X's father, who was still holding his breath, finally let it out, uncrossed his fingers, and grinned back at X.
And at their next secret Project Baby X meeting, the scientists grinned, too. Baby X was doing fine.
But then it was time for X to start school. The Joneses were really worried about this, because school was even more full of rules for boys and girls, and there were no rules for Xes. The teacher would tell the boys to form one line, and girls to form another line. There would be boys' games and girls' games, and boys' secrets and girls' secrets. The school library would have a list of recommended books for girls, and a different list of recommended books for boys. There would even be a bathroom marked BOYS and another marked GIRLS. Pretty soon boys and girls would hardly talk to each other. What would happen to poor little X?
The Joneses spent weeks consulting their Instruction Manual (there were 249« pages of advice under "First Day of School"), and attending urgent special conferences with the smart scientists of Project Baby X.
The scientists had to make sure that X's mother had taught X how to throw and catch a ball properly, and that X's father had been sure to teach X what to serve at a doll's tea party. X had to know how to shoot marbles and how to jump rope and, most of all, what to say when the Other Children asked whether X was a Boy or a Girl.
Finally, X was ready. The Joneses helped X button on a nice new pair of red-and-white checked overalls, and sharpened six pencils for X's nice new pencilbox, and marked X's name clearly on all the books in its nice new bookbag. X brushed its teeth and combed its hair, which just about covered its ears, and remembered to put a napkin in its lunchbox.
The Joneses had asked X's teacher if the class could line up alphabetically, instead of forming separate lines for boys and girls. And they had asked if X could use the principal's bathroom, because it wasn't marked anything except BATHROOM. X's teacher promised to take care of all those problems. But nobody could help X with the biggest problem of all -- Other Children.
Nobody in X's class had known an X before. What would they think? How would X make friends?
You couldn't tell what X was by studying its clothes" overalls don't even button right-to-left, like girls' clothes, or left-to-right, like boys' clothes. And you couldn't guess whether X had a girl's short haircut or a boy's long haircut. And it was very hard to tell by the games X liked to play. Either X played ball very well for a girl, or else X played house very well for a boy.
Some of the children tried to find out by asking X tricky questions, like "Who's your favorite sports star?" That was easy. X had two favorite sports stars: A girl jockey named Robyn Smith and a boy archery champion named Robin Hood. Then they asked, "What's your favorite TV program?" And that was even easier. X's favorite TV program was "Lassie," which stars a girl dog played by a boy dog.
When X said that its favorite toy was a doll, everyone decided that X must be a girl. But then X said that the doll was really a robot, and that X had computerized it, and that it was programmed to bake fudge brownies and then clean up the kitchen. After X told them that, the other children gave up guessing what X was. All they knew was they'd sure like to see X's doll.
After school, X wanted to play with the other children. "How about shooting some baskets in the gym?" X asked the girls. But all they did was make faces and giggle behind X's back.
"How about weaving some baskets in the arts and crafts room?" X asked the boys. But they all made faces and giggled behind X's back, too.
That night, Ms. and Mr. Jones asked X how things had gone at school. X told them sadly that the lessons were okay, but otherwise school was a terrible place for an X. It seemed as if Other Children would never want an X for a friend.
Once more the Joneses reached for their Instruction Manual. Under "Other Children," they found the following message: "What did you Xpect? Other Children have to obey all the silly boy-girl rules, because their parents taught them to. Lucky X -- you don't have to stick to the rules at all! All you have to do is be yourself. P.S. We're not saying it'll be easy."
X liked being itself. But X cried a lot at night, partly because it felt afraid. So X's father held X tight, and cuddled it, and couldn't help crying a little, too. And X's mother cheered them both up by reading an Xciting story about an enchanted prince called Sleeping Handsome, who woke up when Princess Charming kissed him.
The next morning, they all felt much better, and little X went back to school with a brave smile and a clean pair of red-and-white checkered overalls.
There was a seven-letter-word spelling bee in class that day. And a seven-lap boys' relay race in the gym. And a seven-layered-cake baking contest in the girls' kitchen corner. X won the spelling bee. X also won the relay race. And X almost won the baking contest, except it forgot to light the oven. Which only proves that nobody's perfect.
One of the Other Children noticed something else, too. He said: "Winning or losing doesn't seem to count to X. X seems to have fun being good at boys' skills and girls' skills."
"Come to think of it," said another one of the Other Children, "maybe X is having twice as much fun as we are!"
So after school that day, the girl who beat X at the baking contest gave X a big slice of her prize-winning cake. And the boy X beat in the relay race asked X to race him home.
From then on, some really funny things began to happen. Susie, who sat next to X in class, suddenly refused to wear pink dresses to school any more. She insisted on wearing red-and-white checked overalls -- just like X's. Overalls, she told her parents, were much better for climbing monkey bars.
Then Jim, the class football nut, started wheeling his little sister's doll carriage around the football field. He'd put on his entire football uniform, except for the helmet. Then he'd put the helmet in the carriage, lovingly tucked under an old set of shoulder pads. Then he'd start jogging around the field, pushing the carriage and singing "Rockabye Baby" to his football helmet. He told his family that X did the same thing, so it must be okay. After all, X was now the team's star quarterback.
Susie's parents were horrified by her behavior, and Jim's parents were worried sick about his. But the worst came when the twins, Joe and Peggy, decided to share everything with each other. Peggy used Joe's hockey skates and his microscope, and took half his newspaper route. Joe used Peggy's needlepoint kit and her cookbooks, and took two of her three babysitting jobs. Peggy started running the lawn mower, and Joe started running the vacuum cleaner.
Their parents weren't one bit pleased with Peggy's wonderful biology experiments or with Joe's terrific needlepoint pillows. They didn't care that Peggy mowed the lawn better and that Joe vacuumed the carpet better. In fact, they were furious. It's all that little X's fault, they agreed. Just because X doesn't know what it is, or what it's supposed to be, it wants to get everybody else mixed up, too!
Peggy and Joe were forbidden to play with X any more. So was Susie, and then Jim, and then all the Other Children. But it was too late; the Other Children stayed mixed up and happy and free, and refused to go back to the way they'd been before X.
Finally, Joe and Peggy's parents decided to call an emergency meeting of the school's Parents' Association, to discuss "The X Problem." They sent a report to the principal stating that X was a "disruptive influence." They demanded immediate action. The Joneses, they said, should be forced to tell whether X was a boy or a girl.
And then X should be forced to behave like whichever it was. If the Joneses refused to tell, the Parent's Association said, then X must take an Xamination. The school psychiatrist must Xamine it physically and mentally, and issue a full report. If X's test showed it was a boy, it would have to obey all the boys' rules. If it proved to be a girl, X would have to obey all the girls' rules.
And if X turned out to be some kind of mixed-up misfit, then X should be Xpelled from the school. Immediately!
The principal was very upset. Disruptive influence? Mixed-up misfit? But X was an Xcellent student. All the teachers said it was a delight to have X in their classes. X was president of the student council. X had won first prize in the talent show, second prize in the art show, honorable mention in the science fair, and six athletic events on field day, including the potato race.
Nevertheless, insisted the Parents' Association, X is a Problem Child, X is the Biggest Problem Child we have ever seen!
So the principal reluctantly notified X's parents that numerous complaints about X's behavior had come to the school's attention. And that after the psychiatrist's Xamination, the school would decide what to do about X.
The Joneses reported this at once to the scientists, who referred them to page 85,759 of the Instruction Manual. "Sooner or later," it said, "X will have to be Xamined by a psychiatrist. This may be the only way any of us will know for sure whether X is mixed up -- or whether everyone else is."
The night before X was to be Xamined, the Joneses tried not to let X see how worried they were. "What if -- ?" Mr. Jones would say. And Ms. Jones would reply, "No use worrying." Then a few minutes later, Ms. Jones would say, "What if -- ?" and Mr. Jones would reply, "No use worrying." Then a few minutes later, Ms. Jones would say, "What if -- ?" and Mr. Jones would reply, "No use worrying."
X just smiled at them both, and hugged them hard and didn't say much of anything. X was thinking. What if -- ? And then X thought: No use worrying.
At Xactly 9 o'clock the next day, X reported to the school psychiatrist's office. The principal, along with a committee from the Parents' Association, X's teacher, X's classmates, and Ms. and Mr. Jones, waited in the hall outside. Nobody knew the details of the tests X was to be given, but everybody knew they'd be very hard, and that they'd reveal Xactly what everyone wanted to know about X, but were afraid to ask.
It was terribly quiet in the hall. Almost spooky. Once in a while, they would hear a strange noise inside the room. There were buzzes. And a beep or two. And several bells. An occasional light would flash under the door. The Joneses thought it was a white light, but the principal thought it was blue. Two or three children swore it was either yellow or green. And the Parents' Committee missed it completely.
Through it all, you could hear the psychiatrist's low voice, asking hundreds of questions, and X's higher voice, answering hundreds of answers.
The whole thing took so long that everyone knew it must be the most complete Xamination anyone had ever had to take. Poor X, the Joneses thought. Serves X right, the Parents' Committee thought. I wouldn't like to be in X's overalls right now, the children thought.
At last, the door opened. Everyone crowded around to hear the results. X didn't look any different; in fact, X was smiling. But the psychiatrist looked terrible. He looked as if he was crying! "What happened?" everyone began shouting. Had X done something disgraceful? "I wouldn't be a bit surprised!" muttered Peggy and Joe's parents. "Did X flunk the whole test?" cried Susie's parents. "Or just the most important part?" yelled Jim's parents.
"Oh, dear," sighed Mr. Jones.
"Oh, dear," sighed Ms. Jones.
"Sssh," ssshed the principal. "The psychiatrist is trying to speak."
Wiping his eyes and clearing his throat, the psychiatrist began, in a hoarse whisper. "In my opinion," he whispered -- you could tell he must be very upset -- "in my opinion, young X here" --
"Yes? Yes?" shouted a parent impatiently.
"Sssh!" sshed the principal
"Young Sssh here, I mean young X," said the doctor, frowning, "is just about -- "
"Just about what? Let's have it!" shouted another parent.
"...just about the least mixed-up child I've ever Xamined!" said the psychiatrist.
"Yay for X!" yelled one of the children. And then the others began yelling, too. Clapping and cheering and jumping up and down.
"SSSH!" ssshed the principal, but nobody did.
The Parents' Committee was angry and bewildered. How could X have passed the whole Xamination? Didn't X have an identity problem? Wasn't X mixed up at all? Wasn't X any kind of a misfit? How could it not be, when it didn't even know what it was? And why was the psychiatrist crying?
Actually, he had stopped crying and was smiling politely through his tears. "Don't you see?" he said. "I'm crying because it was wonderful! X has absolutely no identity problem! X isn't one bit mixed up! As for being a misfit -- ridiculous! X knows perfectly well what it is! Don't you, X?" The doctor winked. X winked back.
"But what is X?" shrieked Peggy and Joe's parents. "We still want to know what it is!"
"Ah, yes," said the doctor, winking again. "Well, don't worry. You'll all know one of these days. And you won't need me to tell you."
"What? What does he mean?" some of the parents grumbled suspiciously.
Susie and Peggy and Joe all answered at once. "He means that by the time X's sex matters, it won't be a secret any more!"
With that, the doctor began to push through the crowd toward X's parents. "How do you do," he said, somewhat stiffly. And then he reached out to hug them both. "If I ever have an X of my own," he whispered, "I sure hope you'll lend me your instruction manual."
Needless to say, the Joneses were very happy. The Project Baby X scientists were rather pleased, too. So were Susie, Jim, Peggy, Joe, and all the Other Children. The Parents' Association wasn't, but they had promised to accept the psychiatrist's report, and not make any more trouble. They even invited Ms. and Mr. Jones to become honorary members, which they did.
Later that day, all X's friends put on their red-and-white checked overalls and went over to see X. They found X in the back yard, playing with a very tiny baby that none of them had ever seen before. The baby was wearing very tiny red-and-white checked overalls.
"How do you like our new baby?" X asked the Other Children proudly.
"It's got cute dimples," said Jim.
"It's got husky biceps, too," said Susie.
"What kind of baby is it?" asked Joe and Peggy.
X frowned at them. "Can't you tell?" Then X broke into a big, mischievous grin. "It's a Y!
Adler, Margot, Drawing Down the Moon, 1979, Viking Penguin
Adler, Margot, "Meanings of Matriarchy,"
The Politics of Women's Spirituality,
C. Spretnak, Ed., 1982, New York: Anchor Books
Chesler, Phyllis, "The Amazon Legacy,"
The Politics of Women's Spirituality,
C. Spretnak, Ed., 1982, New York: Anchor Books
Christ, Carol P. & Charlene Spretnak, "Images of Spiritual Power
in
Women's Fiction," The Politics of Women's Spirituality,
C. Spretnak, Ed., 1982, New York: Anchor Books
Collins, Sheila, "When the Veils Come Tumbling Down,"
Women in the Year 2000, Maggie Tripp, Ed., 1974,
New York: Arbor House
Fisher, Helen E., Anatomy of Love, 1992, New York: Norton
Gould, Lois, "X: A Fabulous Child's Story,"
Women in the Year 2000, Maggie Tripp, Ed., 1974,
New York: Arbor House
Janeway, Elizabeth, Man's World, Woman's Place: A Study in Social
Mythology, 1971, New York: William Morrow
Karp, Lila & Renos Mandis, "Genderless Sexuality: A Male-Female
Psychological Exploration of the Future of Sexual Relationships,"
Women in the Year 2000, Maggie Tripp, Ed., 1974, New York:
Arbor House
Neumann, Erich, The Great Mother, 1955, New York: Princeton
University Press
The Politics of Women's Spirituality, Charlene Spretnak, Ed.,
1982, New York: Anchor Press
Quindlen, Anna, Thinking Out Loud, 1993, New York: Random House
Rich, Adrienne, "The Kingdom of the Fathers," Partisan Review,
1976, Vol. 43, No. 1
Rich, Adrienne, Of Woman Born, 1977, New York: Bantam
The Urantia Book, 1996, Chicago, Uversa Press
Women in the Year 2000, Maggie Tripp, Ed., 1974, New York:
Arbor House
Zabriskie, Philip, "Goddesses in Our Midst," Quadrant,
Fall
1974, No. 17
Zolla, Elemire, The Androgyne: Reconciliation of Male and
Female, 1981, New York: Crossroad
A service of
The Urantia Book Fellowship